La Belle Sauvage (once again, Holborn Viaduct)

[37Oban]

Hi,

 

once you've completed the three-way and diamond the Peco turnout will look out of place, which will bug you until you replace it!

 

I used to model in N, and eventually bit the bullet and made a turnout, and after that there was no stopping me!  Bisected turnout, curved double and single slips, three-ways besides standard turnouts.  I say standard, they were all built to fit a particular location that Peco couldn't possibly match, and looked so much the better for it!   Oh, and they were all built using limewood timbers with 0.4 brass pins with their heads filed flat! I no longer have the track, but I am in the process of building a double slip in EM, as a practise piece!

 

Roja

[martin_wynne]

4 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

I can ask your advice, would prototype practise be to extend the check/wing-rails of the threeway's left hand route into the check-rails and wing rails of that corner of the diamond?

 

Hi William,

 

Probably not in that situation, although it's moot.

 

If the curve continued through the diamond I would say perhaps yes, but as it's on the straight, standard wing rails seem more likely. Using parallel-wing V-crossings makes them non-standard, and track designers always prefer to use standard components wherever possible for ease of maintenance.

 

The usual rule ("usual" being a very flexible concept in this case), is that if there is only one timber between the check/wing rail ends they are likely to be merged into a single rail. If more than one, they would usually remain separate, always depending on the geometry and ruling radius. If both the rails are check rails, they are more likely to be merged over a longer gap, especially if curved.

 

On the prototype parallel-wing V-crossings are not as simple as they look -- the wing rails are inclined at 1:20 towards the vee, whereas check rails are always vertical (except in some early pre-group designs). This means that in order to join them together a twist in the rail is needed somewhere, or else special vertical wing rails (and matching crossing chairs and knuckle spacers) are needed. It all makes maintenance more difficult if standard stock replacement parts can't be used.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Lacathedrale]

6 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I'm puzzled.

 

If you are making that diamond and 3-way, why give yourself problems by having to work it round Peco turnouts? Surely easier (and better) to built it all.

 

Hi Joseph, the original plan was to hand lay everything, as per this post: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/148579-a-snippet-of-victorian-london/&do=findComment&comment=3762639 but in reality, there's not much to be gained by hand laying the two plain turnouts opposite each other on the diamond, I don't think - they are just standard B6's which are as near as damnit to the Peco bullhead offerings. The only other track that might be required is a double slip which is certainly achievable but given the imminent Peco offering I'm not sure what value it adds, really...

 

I think if I were laying this throat on a curve or with even more complex pointwork, like Ludgate Hill - then I definitely would lay the whole thing (bottom-right is the lattice bridge over Ludgate Hill, and represents the exit to FY in the 'full' version of the HV layout)

(source: https://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=2400&forum_id=12 )

 

I've finished The South Eastern and Chatham Railway by O. S. Nock - lots of interesting tidbits and pieces. 

 

It seems that the LCDR's 2-4-0's in the Enigma and Europa Class were the real movers and shakers until Wainwright's D-class came along:

 

The Enigma is quite similar albeit earlier - open splashers and no dome or cab roof. An interesting scratch-build project for the far future, maybe?

 

In the meantime I've finished putting down the timbers for the three-way:

 

 

Unfortunately however, I've lost the Peco bullhead turnout on the rightmost road (which leads to Platform 1 and the pilot loco shed, just by the paper cutout of the diamond) - super annoying! After the above comments, I'm wondering if it's worth hand-laying that first, and then working towards the diamond and three-way that way?

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by Lacathedrale

[martin_wynne]

22 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I don't think - they are just standard B6's which are as near as damnit to the Peco bullhead offerings. The only other track that might be required is a double slip which is certainly achievable but given the imminent Peco offering I'm not sure what value it adds, really...

 

Hi William,

 

But the Peco turnouts are not 00-SF (as in your topic title). It's ok to mix for all-RTR wheels, but what wheels will you be running?

 

Also, unlike their productions for the EMGS, the Peco 00 turnouts with 12-degree exit are only close to a standard B-6 where you need a curviform V-crossing.

 

And the inside slips at 1:4.7 will be a very long way from anything prototypical.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

At the risk of repetition, a Peco turnout, with its 12 degree crossing is nothing like a B6.

 

But I think I need to go back a few pages and understand what it is that you are trying to achieve.

[Lacathedrale]

Interesting, Martin - thank you. All my stock will have modern wheels.

 

@Joseph_Pestell  - to be honest I'm trying not to get very stuck into the weeds of the trackwork as is my wont. It is only the lack of a ready-to-plonk diamond and three-way which is leading me to hand lay what I am. If you were to chart a graph of all of my layouts, you would find very little of note after 'commencing trackwork' for any of them! It's not so much that I'm in a race to the end, but I'm just very aware that there is more to the hobby than building baseboards and laying track which is literally all I've been doing for the last 3 years or so!

 

Truly if you have a suggestion around the peco pointwork I'd gladly hear it. It has been the case for some time around the design of the layout boards, the viaduct and the plan however, that both the roads of the slip are aligned to direct platform entries, and the two plain turnouts on the corners of the diamond are aligned to provide exit to the FY on one end and another platform road on the other. Short of some radical chopping and redesigning it would appear my geometry is such as it is - unless there's a way to maintain that angle while increasing the turnout size longitudinally (where I do have some flexibility.

 

Please don't misunderstand - I am extremely grateful for the comments and pointers!

[Lacathedrale]

Having located the bullhead turnout, most of the pointwork (save the slip, of course) is in place. The whole layout is a series of very shallow sinuous curves which while not very prototypical should please the eye:

 

 

I've not really got the foggiest on where to start with the track laying, my complete guess is to start on the rear road of the three-way and treat that as my datum? Any suggestions gladly taken!

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by Lacathedrale

[hayfield]

I think your title may be confusing matters. Nothing wrong with using RTR track and building items which are not available commercially. However I believe the soundest advice is to use the same track standards on the hand built track as on the RTR track. In Templot you require 00-BF as a gauge  00SF is a different gauge to OO-BF using different standards

 

00-BF uses the standard 00 track gauge, 00SF will require different gauges, some of which are available from C&L. 00-BF will also give you a bit more wriggle room as to the stock you can use, and will certainly make building the 3 way less demanding, but you still have to ensure everything is in alignment 

[lezz01]

Start with the 3 way William. Then the diamond and the right hand turnout next to the 3 way then add the slip and the second right hand and the left hand last. The whole formation hangs on the location off the diamond but it's position is dictated by the 3 way so start there to locate the position of the diamond then everything else is dictated by that. TBH it would be easier to build the whole thing by hand to get a better flow and to avoid odd bits of track that you might have to fit to join everything up but I like building track so I would go that way.

Regards Lez.  

[Lacathedrale]

Thanks @lezz01 - inside the three-way what's the order of operations? one route, then the middle, then the other route?

 

@hayfield I am using OO-SF on all hand laid pointwork with the specific gauges from C&L/etc. - do you think the title still confuses matters?

[hayfield]

William

 

The order I would proceed is to fit the furthest away from the switch rail Vee/common crossing first, then fit the second closest finally the nearest

 

The must crucial ares is the centre road where the middle and the closest vee to the switch rails interact, both they and the wing rails must be spot on, in practice I have found you need to check the wing rails both with a wing rail gauge and a check rail gauge, the latter taking priority.

 

The next crucial area is the nearest Vee to the switch rails, this should be built as a curviform Vee not a straight one, the stock rail opposite this may need gauge widening and certainly the check rail needs to be set with a check rail gauge. You need to check and test each part you do (where possible) before you move to the next part.

 

I still wonder why you are pursuing to use 00-SF standards on this trackwork whilst using Peco RTR turnouts with differing standards. in theory it should work, I just think you should stick to one set of standards, other wise you run the risk of some stock only working on some of the track 

[Lacathedrale]

Hi again @hayfield, thank you - is it possible for you to restate the above with the letters/numbers I've put in below? I can't quite follow which you mean at each point.

 

 

 

 

[hayfield]

1 minute ago, Lacathedrale said:

Hi again @hayfield, thank you - is it possible for you to restate the above with the letters/numbers I've put in below? I can't quite follow which you mean at each point.

 

 

 

 

 

The order I would proceed is to fit the furthest away A from the switch rail Vee/common crossing first, then fit the second closest  C finally the nearest B

 

The must crucial ares is the centre road  2   where the middle C   and the closest vee B  to the switch rails interact, both they and the wing rails must be spot on, in practice I have found you need to check the wing rails both with a wing rail gauge and a check rail gauge, the latter taking priority.

[hayfield]

6 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Hi again @hayfield, thank you - is it possible for you to restate the above with the letters/numbers I've put in below? I can't quite follow which you mean at each point.

 

 

The next crucial area is the nearest Vee to the switch rails  Road 3 common crossing B, this should be built as a curviform Vee not a straight one, the stock rail opposite this may need gauge widening and certainly the check rail needs to be set with a check rail gauge. You need to check and test each part you do (where possible) before you move to the next part.

6 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

 

 

[lezz01]

Personally I would start with the first crossing of the diamond then the stock rail of route 3 as far as crossing A then tac it out of the way somehow. Then fit crossing A followed by the bottom closure rail as far as the switch rail then you can fit the upper closure rail of switch A and fit the rest of the bottom stock rail. Using the upper closure rail of A as a datum you can now fit crossing B and both closure rails

of B. You need to be careful now because the point rail of crossing B becomes the closure rail and the wing rail of crossing C so if you are using chairs with a 1/20 incline you will need to bend some of these bits of rail in both planes to get it all to line up. Then fit crossing C and it's closure rails and then the top stock rail and then all the switch rails and the check rails and the jobs a goodun. Then you need to think about tie bars and operating linkage.  This is just the way I would tackle it and I don't claim to be the Michelangelo of track building. I have built track in P4, EM and 7mm including slips and a scissors with a slip on one leg and it all worked and some of it is still working, but I've never built a 3 way. So good luck.

You also need to figure the wiring and where you need to put rail breaks but you can wire crossing B and C together as there is no movement possible that needs them to be of different polarity at any given time, and run them off one micro switch so you only need 2 switches.

Regards Lez.      

[Andy Reichert]

I think the prototype track layout, even if simplified will make a fascinating operating model.

 

I am curious if Templot automatically compensate for the various gauge changes between the PECO and the hand-built turnouts, etc. in the throat, if the interface data is entered.?

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

6 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

I am curious if Templot automatically compensate for the various gauge changes between the PECO and the hand-built turnouts, etc. in the throat, if the interface data is entered.?

 

Hi Andy,

 

No, gauge-change within a template is not a function supported in Templot.

 

But almost anything is possible using customized partial templates -- here for example is a very useful converter track from EM at one end to S7 at the other:

That's a length of straight track, but the same thing could be done on curved track, or even on a transition curve.

 

My preference would always be to stick to a constant gauge throughout a layout, with gauge-widening only where needed on sharp curves. However, for 00-SF that would mean a lot of hand-built plain track -- on a large layout that's a lot of hand-building.

 

Many 00-SF modellers prefer to use 16.5mm plastic flexi-track for their plain track, in effect providing gauge-widening everywhere whether needed or not. My preferred way of making the gauge transition is then to heat-soften the moulded chairs on the end few sleepers, allowing the rails to narrow down to 16.2mm for connection to 00-SF pointwork.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Izzy]

Looking at the 3-way template, and feeling that working outwards gives the best wriggle room for adjustment, I would suggest that laying crossing C first, gauging and laying A from that, and then laying B from both of them, followed by the other rails. C side done first then gives structure for the rest of it. That’s the way I’d tackle it I think. 
 

Izzy

[Lacathedrale]

Ha! Well, at least there is some strong discussion going on - three people with three different suggestions!

 

@lezz01 -  A, B, C

@Izzy - C, A, B

@hayfield: - A, C, B

 

I'm using C&L chairs for this one, so will have to review bending the rails up straight. So far, two vees filed up and soldered...

[Joseph_Pestell]

Just been through the whole six pages. Great stuff!

 

My father had a fascination for this area of railway London which I have inherited. Always fancied doing a "might-have-been" layout at a later date (1950s) but with Ludgate Hill still open. It would be shown from the east (largely derelict and open land post WW2 until the 1970s). So the Widened Lines would emerge from below Holborn Viaduct and Blackfriars train shed would be the view blocker at the left-hand end of the scenic part.

[Andy Reichert]

12 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Andy,

 

No, gauge-change within a template is not a function supported in Templot.

 

But almost anything is possible using customized partial templates -- here for example is a very useful converter track from EM at one end to S7 at the other:

That's a length of straight track, but the same thing could be done on curved track, or even on a transition curve.

 

My preference would always be to stick to a constant gauge throughout a layout, with gauge-widening only where needed on sharp curves. However, for 00-SF that would mean a lot of hand-built plain track -- on a large layout that's a lot of hand-building.

 

Many 00-SF modellers prefer to use 16.5mm plastic flexi-track for their plain track, in effect providing gauge-widening everywhere whether needed or not. My preferred way of making the gauge transition is then to heat-soften the moulded chairs on the end few sleepers, allowing the rails to narrow down to 16.2mm for connection to 00-SF pointwork.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

I did wonder if the approx 30 on radius 90 degree exit from the station were going to need to be gauge widened for six coupled locos. But your using flex track answer covers that. 

 

I actually have been manudfacturing several specialized accurate track items for much of this century that perform similarly to your drawing example above.

 

 

For example this changes "Clumsy Hands Scale" to Standard HO. 

 It's particularly handy if you want to place a 4-8-8-2 and 12 wheel tender onto fine scale track just holding the body.

 

 

And this re-gauges and converts regular (NMRA) HO track to my much finer flange way street track.

 

Andy

 

 

 

[Andy Reichert]

Sorry for the bit of a wobble off-topic earlier.

 

But I do hope everyone concerned is aware of this, IMHO, terrific and very relevant shot on Flickr.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21602076@N05/3127484633

 

It makes me wonder if some exhibition layouts would be more interesting if they were built to be looked down on. . .

 

Andy

[Lacathedrale]

That's a really lovely shot @Andy Reichert - it illustrates well the extremely cramped throat. Apparently it was neccesary to kiss the buffers even with the rebuilt and extended platforms, in order not to gridlock the throat - and even then there we no parallel moves possible. You can see the remains of the middle platform just above the signal gantry. I didn't realise to what degree the metropolitan extension went underneath the platform roads, either.  The tower of Ludgate Hill would be a really effective view block on the 'exit to FY' on my extension board, too.

 

The perceptive among you (should you care) may have noticed that I've cut off the stub poking out of the front of the viaduct, this is because I've decided to run a non-functioning Metropolitan Extension slope down the front of the layout - the overhead signal box and all the arches and railings are just perfect.

 

Either way, here's as far as I got yesterday:

 

 

The B crossing is not yet soldered together, I can't find a way to hold it properly while I'm getting the iron at it. Any suggestions gladly taken!

 

 

[Southwich]

Really nice work here - the handbuilt track is looking good and been following on YouTube for a while. Having built numerous points I’d recommend blue tack to hold it all together! Hopefully that should help. 
 

looking forward to some more progress!

 

Will

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

That's a really lovely shot @Andy Reichert - it illustrates well the extremely cramped throat. Apparently it was neccesary to kiss the buffers even with the rebuilt and extended platforms, in order not to gridlock the throat - and even then there we no parallel moves possible. You can see the remains of the middle platform just above the signal gantry. I didn't realise to what degree the metropolitan extension went underneath the platform roads, either.  The tower of Ludgate Hill would be a really effective view block on the 'exit to FY' on my extension board, too.

 

The perceptive among you (should you care) may have noticed that I've cut off the stub poking out of the front of the viaduct, this is because I've decided to run a non-functioning Metropolitan Extension slope down the front of the layout - the overhead signal box and all the arches and railings are just perfect.

 

Either way, here's as far as I got yesterday:

 

 

The B crossing is not yet soldered together, I can't find a way to hold it properly while I'm getting the iron at it. Any suggestions gladly taken!

 

 

 

 

A couple of suggestions, firstly initially just tack items in place until you know all is in gauge and working, so on long lengths initially stick one in every 5 chairs, except around common crossings

 

To test the work as you go tack in place the stock and closure rails and test with locos as well as wagons, I use both motorised and non motorised rolling chassis, I have six or more jumper cables for testing with a motorised chassis.

 

As for holding wing rails in place, just get use to getting burnt fingers/nails